Let's hypothetically assume that the study - which was funded and performed by the Congressional Management Foundation, so there's no possibility of bias there at all - is accurate, and they really do work upwards of 70 hours a week.

"Members of Congress have a pretty strong work ethic. They spend about 70 hours a week when in Washington working, and when they are back home, about 59 hours a week," says Brad Fitch, president and chief executive officer of the Congressional Management Foundation."

...and if you believe this shiat, I got a bridge you might be interested in too.

Let's not leave out serving the interests of the obscenely wealthy and their corporations. They are also quite keen on turning our democracy into an authoritarian police state.

On those issues, they are completely indefatigable.

Hell, we just made the "temporary" Bush tax cuts permanent instead of finally allowing them to expire. Now, only days later, they are seeking to cut Social Security, despite the fact that it is the nation's one self funded program and has trillions of dollars worth of surplus.

kiwimoogle84:Dr Dreidel: durbnpoisn: Take away the salaries, and all you would have left are people who actually CARE are either rich enough to be able to work 2 or 6 years without a paycheck, or have been bribed enough to be able to afford it.

// next time, think one step beyond what sounds like a good idea// think of what you're incentivizing with that plan, and what the unintended consequences might be// that goes for the rest of you slackers as well

I was thinking more, pay them like a government servant like they should be. A comfortable 50K per year or something. You don't get rid of the pay ENTIRELY, just stop the overinflation of the salaries when equated to how much work they actually do. Maybe pay them a stipend for part of the year when they're in office- like a deployment salary. Then pay them minimum otherwise.

Same problem.

If the US Treasury pays them $50k (which is less than some bribes they've taken), they'll sell their services to someone who will pay more. The more we pay them, the less likely they are to want or need a bribe. I'm largely OK with legislators' salaries as they are, though - I'd like for them to be tied to minimum wage or the poverty line or the U3/U6; something so that they feel the pain when we do.

Scalia made this argument about SCOTUS pay a few years back - pay them more, and you'll attract better talent. The difference there is that the lack of worrying about your future, coupled with the status being on SCOTUS gets you is worth far more than their $200k salary.

Am I the only one who thinks someone shouldn't be able to make a 'career' out of 'politics'?

I really really wish the founding fathers had been smart enough to include "6 terms House, 2 terms Senate" as a limit in the Constitution. But they didn't envision career politicians like Strom Thrumond.

durbnpoisn:Take away the salaries, and all you would have left are people who actually CARE

are either rich enough to be able to work 2 or 6 years without a paycheck, or have been bribed enough to be able to afford it.

// next time, think one step beyond what sounds like a good idea// think of what you're incentivizing with that plan, and what the unintended consequences might be// that goes for the rest of you slackers as well

Bradford Fitch has spent 25 years in Washington as a journalist, congressional aide, consultant, college instructor, Internet entrepreneur, and writer/researcher.

Fitch began his career as a radio and television reporter in the 1980s. He began working on Capitol Hill in 1988 where he served for 13 years. He worked in a variety of positions for four Members of Congress, including: press secretary, campaign manager, legislative director, and chief of staff.

Fitch left Congress in 2001 to work for the Congressional Management Foundation. As Deputy Director of CMF, he served as a management consultant for Members of Congress, offering confidential guidance, conducting staff training programs, and writing publications on enhancing the performance of individual congressional offices and the institution. He served as editor of Setting Course: A Congressional Management Guide for the 108th Congress and 109th Congress editions. In 2005 Fitch managed CMF's Communicating with Congress project, and co-authored the report, How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy. He left CMF in 2006 to form a new company, Knowlegis, in affiliation with Capitol Advantage. Knowlegis is now a part of CQ-Roll Call Group, where Fitch served as a Vice President until 2010 when he returned to CMF.

Fitch is also the author of Citizen's Handbook to Influencing Elected Officials (TheCapitol.Net, 2010); Media Relations Handbook for Agencies, Associations, Nonprofits and Congress (TheCapitol.Net, 2004); "Best Practices in Online Advocacy for Associations, Nonprofits, and Corporations," a chapter in Routledge Handbook of Political Management (Routledge, 2008); and articles on communications and advocacy. He has taught journalism and public communications at American University in Washington, D.C, where he served an adjunct Associate Professor of Communications. He received his B.A. degree in Political Science from Johns Hopkins University and his M.A. degree in Journalism and Public Affairs from American University.

durbnpoisn:There are only 2 of them in any real position to get elected. So, you can either vote for one of them, or one of the gazillion independants who stand no chance of getting elected (thus the old adage of "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" or "wasting your vote").

The corporate owned media certainly do spend a whole lot of time telling us that if we don't vote for the two parties they already own, we're just "wasting our vote".

Oddly, once the established parties noticed that they were about to be made irrelevant, they suddenly decided that they should start representing the interests of the people who voted instead of just representing the obscenely wealthy.

We've done it before when the rich completely owned Congress, and we can do it again, if we stop listening to the asshats who tell us we're just "wasting our votes" if we don't keep voting for the parties that sold us out.

"They think the most important thing they need to do is staying in touch with their constituents,"

"They think the most important thing they need to do is staying in touch with their constituents stay in office so they can bend rules, shirk responsibilities, and amass incredible wealth from bribes and kickbacks,"

honk:So, out of 435 House members, they surveyed 194, or less than half, out of whom only 25 responded. All the conclusions they're drawing are based on relatively vague questions and are based on the voluntary responses of under 6 percent of the House membership?

Yeah, that should yield unshakable results. Bullshiat survey is bullshiat.

Also, that 70 hours per week is actually the SUM of the hours worked by ALL 25 RESPONDENTS.

So, out of 435 House members, they surveyed 194, or less than half, out of whom only 25 responded. All the conclusions they're drawing are based on relatively vague questions and are based on the voluntary responses of under 6 percent of the House membership?

Yeah, that should yield unshakable results. Bullshiat survey is bullshiat.

35 percent on "Legislative/Policy Work"17 percent on "Constituent Services Work"17 percent on "Political/Campaign Work"9 percent on "Press/Media Relations"9 percent with "Family/Friends"7 percent on "Administrative/Managerial Work"6 percent on "Personal Time" I'd count "Constituent Services Work", "Political/Campaign Work" and "Press/Media Relations" as "Getting Re-elected", so they spend 43% of their time getting re-elected. That's more time than they spend on "Legislative/Policy Work", which is what most people think of as their job.

Yeah, I could put in 70 hours a week at my job too if they'd let me. Once I finished my work I'd spend my time on facebook or even here. 1/4 of my time at work NOW is spent killing time since they don't give me enough to do, so while I say I put in 40 hours a week, I mean I get PAID for 40 hours a week. That doesn't reflect at all the work I actually do.

Lt. Cheese Weasel:"Members of Congress have a pretty strong work ethic. They spend about 70 hours a week when in Washington working, and when they are back home, about 59 hours a week," says Brad Fitch, president and chief executive officer of the Congressional Management Foundation."

...and if you believe this shiat, I got a bridge you might be interested in too.

FTA: Of the 194 members of the U.S. House of Representatives randomly selected to participate in the 2011 survey, 25 responded.

Well, we know the work ethics of about 0.5% of Congress. And I am sure that nobody that actually responded claimed that they were slackers.So I would take 10-15% off the numbers provided and that might actually be a little more accurate.